"We were shown some sketches, but there was nothing concrete, no geographical coordinates or details and no proof the test was done by professionals," said Lavrov.

"There were no comments anywhere regarding the experts' doubt about the footage circulating all over the internet."

"What our American, British and French partners have shown us before - as well as now - does not convince us at all."

"There are no supporting facts. There is only repetitive talk in the vein of 'we know for sure.' "

"And when we ask for further clarification, we receive the following response: 'You are aware that this is classified information, therefore we cannot show it to you.' So there are still no facts."

Lavrov held a later Monday press conference. Give peace a chance is doomed, he suggested. Anti-Syrian hardliners want more than token bombing. They want "a wider and deeper strike on the country," said Lavrov.

Every effort is being made to choose peace over war, he added. Insurgents are creating "controlled chaos," he said.

Attacking Syria assures greater regional extremism, he stressed. It'll have the opposite effect of what most people expect.

So far, Washington's anti-Assad coalition consists of itself and France. According to Britain's Telegraph, Cameron's under pressure for a new parliamentary vote for war.

Obama gave him time to get it. "Lord Howard, a former Conservative leader, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a former Foreign Secretary, and Lord Ashdown, a former Liberal Democrat leader, led calls to vote again on Sunday," said the Telegraph.

Former Labour cabinet minister Ben Bradshaw suggested he'll support a second vote. Foreign Minister William Hague and Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborn so far ruled it out.

At the same time, Hague said he'd consider one if Labour leader Edward Miliband's willing to cooperate.

He warned that not confronting Assad now means a "bigger and more painful" confrontation later.

On August 31, The Spectator headlined "Could there be a second UK vote on Syria?" Perhaps so if Congress votes yea.

Last Thursday, Miliband said the following:

"On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There having been no motion passed by this House tonight, will the Prime Minister confirm to the House that, given the will of the House that has been expressed tonight, he will not use the royal prerogative to order the UK to be part of military action before there has been another vote in the House of Commons?"

Cameron won't call one without certainty of prevailing. He needs Labour support to do so.

"If there was another vote," said the Spectator, "Labour would have to make the public declaration of its position on intervention that Miliband seems to fear so much."

On September 2, The Independent headlined "Syria crisis: Nick Clegg rules out fresh Commons vote on military action as Boris Johnson raises pressure on Cameron," saying:

Deputy Prime Minister Clegg said "we're not going to keep asking the same question of Parliament again and again."

"I can't foresee any circumstances that we would go back to Parliament on the same question, on the same issue."

"The Conservative MPs, and there were Liberal Democrats, who couldn't support us, they have a deep scepticism about military involvement and I don't think another UN report, or whatever, would make the difference."

"Of course I wanted us to be part of a potential military response. Now that is just not going to be open to us now because the House of Commons has spoken."

His comments followed London Mayor Boris Johnson saying:

"If there is new and better evidence that inculpates Assad, I see no reason why the Government should not lay a new motion before Parliament, inviting British participation - and then it is Ed Miliband, not David Cameron, who will face embarrassment."

"The Labour leader has been capering around pretending to have stopped an attack on Syria - when his real position has been more weaselly."

"If you add the Tories and Blairites together, there is a natural majority for a calibrated and limited response to a grotesque war crime."

A previous article explained Washington's prime target is Iran, not Syria. The same goes for Israel. Robert Fisk expressed the same sentiment, saying:

"Before the stupidest Western war in the history of the modern world begins - I am, of course, referring to the attack on Syria that we all yet have to swallow - it might be as well to say that the cruise missiles which we confidently expect to sweep onto one of mankind's oldest cities have absolutely nothing to do with Syria."

"They are intended to harm Iran. They are intended to strike at the Islamic republic now that it has a new and vibrant president."

"Iran is Israel's enemy. Iran is therefore, naturally, America's enemy. So fire the missiles at Iran's only Arab ally."

"(W)hat in heaven's name are we doing?" After months of conflict, after tens of thousands died, "we are getting upset about a few hundred deaths."

A "victory for Bashar is a victory for Iran," said Fisk. "And Iranian victories cannot be tolerated by the West."

"(I)f we are to believe the nonsense coming out of Washington, London, Paris and the rest of the 'civilised' world, it's only a matter of time before our swift and avenging sword smiteth the Damascenes."

Observing Arab leaders "applauding this destruction is perhaps the most painful historical experience for the region to endure. And the most shameful."

On September 1, The New York Times headlined "Arab League Endorses International Action," saying:

It did so "to deter what it called the 'ugly crime' of using chemical weapons."

"It was a major step toward supporting Western military strikes but short of the explicit endorsement that the United States and some Persian Gulf allies had hoped for."

It moved beyond its earlier cautious approach. It refuted what Mint Press News headlined on August 29, saying: